Analysing uncertainties of interval judgment data in multiple-criteria evaluation of forest plans

Silva Fennica

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 363-371

  Leskinen, Pekka ^a   Kangas, Jyrki ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Decision analysis; Expert judgment; Forest planning; Pairwise comparisons; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EXPERT SYSTEM; FOREST MANAGEMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 0032456714     PISSN: 00375330     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14214/sf.677     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Alho, J.M., Kangas, J. & Kolehmainen, O. 1996. Uncertainty in expert predictions of the ecological consequences of forest plans. Applied Statistics 45: 1-14.
2. _ & Kangas, J. 1997. Analyzing uncertainties in experts' opinions of forest plan performance. Forest Science 43: 521-528.
3. Crawford, G. & Williams, C. 1985. A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29: 387-405.
4. Hyberg, B.T. & Holthausen, D.M. 1989. The behavior of nonindustrial private forest landowners. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 19: 1014-1023.
5. Kangas, J. 1992. Multiple-use planning of forest resources by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 7: 259-268.
6. _ , Matero, J. & Pukkala, T. 1992. Analyyttisen hierarkiaprosessin käyttö metsien monikäytön suunnittelussa - tapaustutkimus. [Using the analytic hierarcy process in planning of multiple-use forestry - A case study. In Finnish.] Finnish Forest Research Institute. Research Notes 412. 48 p.
7. _ , Laasonen, L. & Pukkala, T. 1993a. A method for estimating forest landowner's landscape preferences. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8: 408-417.
8. _ , Karsikko, J., Laasonen, L. & Pukkala, T. 1993b. A method for estimating the suitability function of wildlife habitat for forest planning on the basis of expertise. Silva Fennica 27: 259-268.
9. _ & Niemeläinen, P. 1996. Opinion of forest-owners and the public on forests and their use in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 11: 269-280.
10. Kreutzwiser, R.D. & Wright, C.S. 1990. Factors influencing integrated forest management on private industrial forest land. Journal of Environmental Management 30(1): 31-46.
11. Lootsma, F.A. 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2: 87-110.
12. Mendoza, G.A. & Sprouse, W. 1989. Forest planning and decision making in fuzzy environments: An overview and illustration. Forest Science 35: 481-502.
13. Moreno-Jimenez, J.M. & Vargas, L.G. 1993. A probabilistic study of preference structures in the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgments. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17(4/5): 73-82.
14. Pukkala, T. & Kangas, J. 1996. A method for incorporating risk and risk attitude into forest planning. Forest Science 42: 198-205.
15. Saaty, T.L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15: 234-281.
16. _ 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York. 287 p.
17. Salo, A.A. & Hämäläinen, R.P. 1992. Preference assessment by imprescise ratio statements. Operations Research 40: 1053-1061.
18. _ & Hämäläinen, R.P. 1995. Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research 82: 458-475.